????最近,，《紐約》雜志刊登的長(zhǎng)篇文章深入報(bào)道了《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的發(fā)行人寶座爭(zhēng)奪戰(zhàn)，爭(zhēng)奪者要么姓蘇茲貝格,，要么是現(xiàn)任發(fā)行人的親戚,。這篇文章很棒，它探討了媒體和一家豪門（也許僅次于默多克家族）的最深層關(guān)系,，所有的內(nèi)斗都是圍繞誰(shuí)家的侄子,、外甥或表兄弟該上位，還剖析了蘇茲貝格家族作為《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》掌控者所感受到的那份高貴責(zé)任,。

????不過,，這篇文章中有一處明顯失誤。它認(rèn)為：“挑選下一任發(fā)行人也許是《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》面臨的最關(guān)鍵挑戰(zhàn),?！笔聦?shí)遠(yuǎn)非如此。對(duì)蘇茲貝格家族的各個(gè)支系來說,，挑選發(fā)行人可能都是最關(guān)鍵的挑戰(zhàn),，但對(duì)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》本身來說,，這件事還遠(yuǎn)算不上最重要的挑戰(zhàn),。

????《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》面臨的挑戰(zhàn)實(shí)際上和所有傳統(tǒng)媒體機(jī)構(gòu)一樣，比如《華盛頓郵報(bào)》,、時(shí)代公司（《財(cái)富》雜志的擁有者）以及CBS等電視業(yè)巨頭,。幾家新聞機(jī)構(gòu)把持著為數(shù)不多的幾個(gè)傳播平臺(tái)，進(jìn)而壟斷這些平臺(tái)帶來的廣告收入,，這樣的時(shí)代已經(jīng)一去不復(fù)返,。還不清楚《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》將在新時(shí)代扮演什么樣的角色。它會(huì)基本上淪為Facebook等其他平臺(tái)的新聞來源嗎,？

????都是因?yàn)樾帐?/strong>

????New York magazine had a long, in-depth piece recently about the race for the publisher’s seat at the New York Times, a race that consists solely of people whose last name is Sulzberger, or who are otherwise related to the current publisher. It’s a great look at the closest thing that the media world has to a royal family (next to the Murdochs, perhaps), with all of the in-fighting over whose nephew or cousin will advance, and a glimpse of the noblesse oblige the Sulzbergers feel as stewards of the Times.

????There’s one glaring error in the story, however: At one point, it says “the selection of the next publisher is perhaps the most critical challenge facing the Times.” This is not even close to being true. Choosing a publisher may be the most critical challenge facing the various branches of the Sulzberger family, but it’s nowhere near the most important challenge for the newspaper company itself.

????The challenge facing the New York Times is the same one that virtually every traditional media entity is facing, whether it’s the Washington Post, or Time Inc. (which owns Fortune) or even TV giants like CBS. The time when a handful of news outlets controlled the only platforms for distribution — and hence, the advertising revenue attached to those platforms — is gone. And it’s not clear what the NYT’s role is going to be in the new world. Will it be primarily a supplier of news to other platforms like Facebook FB 3.56% ?

????The name is the thing

????Given that kind of monumental challenge to the very foundations of the Times and its journalism, is this really the moment when the fifth generation of a founding family should be holding the reins? I would argue that it is not. In some ways, in fact, it is the worst possible time to do that (and many of these same arguments also apply to the Murdoch family and News Corp., incidentally).

????From most accounts, all three of the men in the running for the NYT publisher job are smart and driven. Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, son of the current publisher, helped put together the internal Innovation Report, which outlined the challenges facing the paper. David Perpich, the current publisher’s nephew, is a Harvard MBA and helped build the paywall for the paper. Sam Dolnick, the son of Sulzberger’s cousin, has worked on mobile apps, among other things.

????不過，盡管做出了上述貢獻(xiàn),，但他們最有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的條件,，或者說讓他們超越傳媒界其他所有潛在候選人的條件，則是他們都和蘇茲貝格家族沾親帶故,。實(shí)際上,，他們了解報(bào)刊運(yùn)作方式或者互聯(lián)網(wǎng)運(yùn)作方式的能力只是次要因素。如果把這種能力作為最重要的選擇標(biāo)準(zhǔn),，發(fā)行人這個(gè)位置就會(huì)落入旁人之手,。

????在辦報(bào)紙還很枯燥無(wú)味但會(huì)帶來大筆穩(wěn)定收入的時(shí)代，這樣的“封建”體制,，也就是由某個(gè)家族的各個(gè)支系來掌控如此龐大的傳媒實(shí)體,，也許還有些道理，但這已經(jīng)成為了過去,。同樣的,，在人們毫不知情的情況下，創(chuàng)始家族每年從《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的利潤(rùn)中提取約2400萬(wàn)美元紅利的日子也已經(jīng)不復(fù)存在,。

????格雷厄姆家族已經(jīng)這樣做了

????在不賣掉《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的情況下,，蘇茲貝格家族能完成任務(wù)嗎？也許吧,。他們可以找一位擁有恰當(dāng)能力的發(fā)行人,，然后全權(quán)委托他不惜一切代價(jià)來做到這一點(diǎn)。但從某種程度上說,，這也許比轉(zhuǎn)讓這份報(bào)紙還難以讓蘇茲貝格家族接受,。同時(shí),，這位發(fā)行人會(huì)感受到來自于整個(gè)家族的壓力，就像現(xiàn)任主編目前的情況一樣,。

????唐納德?格雷厄姆的家族曾以類似的方式牢牢控制著《華盛頓郵報(bào)》,，這要?dú)w功于神奇的一股多票制。2013年,，格雷厄姆覺得自己再也不能繼續(xù)擁有這份報(bào)紙了,，遂將其轉(zhuǎn)讓給了亞馬遜的杰夫?貝佐斯。格雷厄姆這樣做是因?yàn)樗辉傧嘈呕蛘卟辉訇P(guān)心《華盛頓郵報(bào)》了嗎,？絕非如此,。恰恰相反，實(shí)際上,，他決定賣掉這份報(bào)紙正是因?yàn)樗X得需要裁員并做出調(diào)整,，但又下不了決心。

????這是怯懦嗎,？我不這么看,。基于我對(duì)唐納德?格雷厄姆的認(rèn)識(shí),，以及和他身邊熟人的接觸,，我想格雷厄姆認(rèn)為貝佐斯是當(dāng)前這個(gè)時(shí)代《華盛頓郵報(bào)》的最佳所有者。這不僅僅是因?yàn)樨愖羲购苡绣X,，因而不太可能受到短期思路的左右,，還因?yàn)樗私饣ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)，知道數(shù)字媒體正在如何改變內(nèi)容發(fā)揮作用的方式,。換句話說,，貝佐斯具備幫助《華盛頓郵報(bào)》適應(yīng)未來的手段和能力。

????《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》需要幫助

????蘇茲貝格家族中有什么人擁有這樣的手段和能力嗎,？也許有,。但如果有這樣的人，他就應(yīng)該可以通過公開競(jìng)爭(zhēng)來贏得這個(gè)職位,，而不是采用《權(quán)力的游戲》中帝王交權(quán)的方式,。讓邁克爾?布隆伯格掌管《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》會(huì)好一些嗎？未必,，但布隆伯格至少會(huì)找到最合適的負(fù)責(zé)人,，而不是姓蘇茲貝格的最佳人選,。

????《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的網(wǎng)上收費(fèi)業(yè)務(wù)也許非常成功,，付費(fèi)用戶已經(jīng)超過100萬(wàn)。然而,，這樣的業(yè)績(jī)?nèi)匀缓茈y彌補(bǔ)印刷版廣告的損失,，原因很簡(jiǎn)單,，那就是印刷版讀者的價(jià)值至少是網(wǎng)絡(luò)讀者的20倍。NYT Now等新App很受歡迎,，但在創(chuàng)收方面尚無(wú)明顯作為,；在原生廣告等領(lǐng)域，《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》截至目前也只是淺嘗輒止,。同時(shí),，編輯部依然人數(shù)眾多，約有1300名成員,。

????和其他所有面對(duì)這些挑戰(zhàn)的傳統(tǒng)媒體機(jī)構(gòu)一樣,，《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》需要的不是對(duì)業(yè)務(wù)模式修修補(bǔ)補(bǔ)，它需要一次“重大手術(shù)”,。有跡象顯示,，如果需要大舉裁員，現(xiàn)任發(fā)行人也許愿意做出必要的犧牲,，把這份報(bào)紙轉(zhuǎn)讓出去,。為了《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》，我希望這些傳聞屬實(shí),。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：Charlie

????校對(duì)：詹妮

????Despite all that, however, their most compelling qualification for the job, and the one that has set them above every other potential candidate anywhere in the media world, is that they are related to someone named Sulzberger. In effect, their ability to understand the way newspapers work or the way the Internet works is secondary. If that was truly the most important decision criteria, someone else would have the job.

????Having a feudal structure in which various branches of a single family control the fate of such a massive media entity might have made sense when the newspaper business was a boring, dependable money-spinner, but those days are gone. And so are the days when a founding family could take $24 million or so out of the newspaper’s coffers every year in the form of dividends without anyone noticing.

????The Grahams did it

????Could the Sulzbergers achieve what they need to without selling the paper? Perhaps. They could search for a publisher with the right skills and then give them carte blanche to do whatever they needed to in order to succeed. But in some ways that might be even more difficult for the family to stomach than selling. And the publisher would feel the weight of all that combined family pressure, just as the current editor does now.

????Donald Graham, whose family had a similarly iron grip on the Washington Post — thanks to the magic of multiple-voting shares — decided in 2013 that he simply couldn’t continue as the owner, and sold to Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. Did Graham do this because he no longer believed in or cared about the Post? Not at all. Just the opposite, in fact: He decided to sellbecause he couldn’t bring himself to make the kinds of cuts and changes that he felt would be necessary.

????Was this cowardice? I don’t think so. Based on what I know about Don Graham, and conversations with those who know him, I think he believed Bezos was the best possible owner for the Post at a time like this. Not just because he is wealthy, and therefore not as likely to be driven by short-term thinking, but because he understands the Internet and how digital media is changing the way that content functions. In other words, he had the tools and the skills to help the Postadapt for the future.

????The Times needs help

????Do any of the Sulzbergers have those tools and skills? Perhaps. But if they do, then they should be able to win an open competition for the job, not be awarded it in the same way the king hands out jobs on Game of Thrones. Would Michael Bloomberg be any better a steward for the Times? Maybe not, but at least he would be looking for the best person to run it, not the best person named Sulzberger.

????The Times may have a tremendously successful paywall, with over a million paying subscribers, but even that is still barely making up for the loss of print advertising, for the simple reason that print readers are worth at least 20 times more than digital readers. New apps like NYT Now have been well received, but as yet aren’t making much in the way of revenue, and the paper has so far only tip-toed into areas like native advertising. Meanwhile, the newsroom is as large as it has ever been, at 1,300 or so.

????Like every other traditional media entity going through these challenges, the Times needs more than just a tweak to its business model here or there — it needs radical surgery. There have been hints that the current publisher might be willing to make the sacrifice required to sell the paper if large cuts necessary. For the sake of the Times, I hope those rumors are true.